I would op out just in case. I remember using Adobe Acrobat at work and noticed they read every single PDF and generate a few comments about it even when you never asked them to. Meaning they‘re scanning through potentially confidential data. I have no doubts Google will do the same sooner or later.
Comment on Gmail users warned to opt out of new feature - what we know
FaceDeer@fedia.io 14 hours ago
I'm not seeing where any of this gives Google permission to train AI using your data. As far as I can see it's all about using AI to manage your data, which is a completely different thing. The word "training" appears to originate in Dave Jones' tweet, not in any of the Google pages being quoted. Is there any confirmation that this is actually happening, and not just a social media panic?
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
Understand that basically ANYTHING that “uses AI” is using you for training data.
At its simplest, it is the old fashioned A/B testing where you are used as part of a reinforcement/labeling pipeline. Sometimes it gets considerably more bullshit as your very queries and what would make you make them are used to “give you a better experience” and so forth.
And if you read any of the EULAs (for the stuff that google opted users into…) you’ll see verbiage along those lines.
Of course, the reality is that google is going to train off our data regardless. But that is why it is a good idea to decouple your life from google as much as possible. It takes a long ass time but… no better time than today.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 hours ago
Understand that basically ANYTHING that "uses AI" is using you for training data.
No, that's not necessarily the case. A lot of people don't understand how AI training and AI inference work, they are two completely separate processes. Doing one does not entail doing the other, in fact a lot of research is being done right now trying to make it possible to do both because it would be really handy to be able to do them together and it can't really be done like that yet.
And if you read any of the EULAs
Go ahead and do so, they will have separate sections specifically about the use of data for training. Data privacy is regulated by a lot of laws, even in the United States, and corporate users are extremely picky about that sort of stuff.
If the checkbox you're checking in the settings isn't explicitly saying "this is to give permission to use your data for training" then it probably isn't doing that. There might be a separate one somewhere, it might just be a blanket thing covered in the EULA, but "tricking" the user like that wouldn't make any sense. It doesn't save them any legal hassle to do it like that.
meejle@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Not that I’ve seen, no.
MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
The only option is smart features, on or off. That requires Google to read the email to categorize them and do a lot of basic stuff. It doesn’t let you narrowly have more privacy on specific features. It’s all or nothing, and if you get a lot of emails then it’s hard to turn it off if you already use categories. Google always does all or nothing because they know people need some of it, same with location. It has to be precise location tracking to use things, you can’t just do rough location.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 hours ago
Yes, but the point is that granting Google permission to manage your data by AI is a very different thing from training the AI on your data. You can do all the things you describe without also having the AI train on the data, indeed it's a hard bit of extra work to train the AI on the data as well.
If the setting isn't specifically saying that it's to let them train AI on your data then I'm inclined to believe that's not what it's for. They're very different processes, both technically and legally. I think there's just some click-baiting going on here with the scary "they're training on your data!" Accusation, it seems to be baseless.
potustheplant@feddit.nl 3 hours ago
So you think that they’re not using your data simply because they’re not telling you that they are? Don’t be naive.
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 hours ago
So they are using AI but not in a capacity that would make it learn? Doubt
FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 hours ago
Yes, exactly. Training an AI is a completely different process from prompting it, it takes orders of magnitude more work and can't be done on a model that's currently in use.